Energy or bullet diameter most important?

[Mike Matteson]

I'd still want a 90+/- compound or recurve with a heavy arrow and broad head…..and adjust my shooting range accordingly! Perhaps at my age….it would only be 80#! memtb

That's a lot of bow to pull! 70lbs was my limit, but a 32" arrow.

 

[memtb]

That's a lot of bow to pull! 70lbs was my limit, but a 32" arrow.

I may have to work up to it! I've actually never tried a recurve of that draw weight….but, could pull an old PSE of that weight many years ago. Rumor has it, they're a bit easier now! memtb

 

[C-130 Dude]

Let's say you are hunting for elk sized and smaller game and are targeting 750 yards or less. Would you say it would be more important for lethal, ethical kill to be the size of the bullet (just an example 30 caliber vs 25 caliber) or the ballistic energy the bullet gives out to that range (just an example 1200 vs 1800 lbs regardless of bullet size)?

I am trying to leave this somewhat open ended to avoid only comments from those who love a certain caliber, but I am considering a future rifle and am hopeful with plenty of practice I could possible do what I listed above. So many calibers out there, I just want to start with the right base and get proficient from there.

Thanks in advance.

I know you intend on elk size. But...There's a reason a 375HH is the smallest caliber allowed hunting in Africa in most areas. It's about the size of the bullet. These large calibers just cause one huge hole with lots of tissue damage. When I was about 10, I saw my best friends dad put an entire beer bottle in a hole made by a 416 Rigby at 100 yards on a humongous wart hog. It was quite the site. BBQ was great also!

 

[memtb]

I know you intend on elk size. But...There's a reason a 375HH is the smallest caliber allowed hunting in Africa in most areas. It's about the size of the bullet. These large calibers just cause one huge hole with lots of tissue damage. When I was about 10, I saw my best friends dad put an entire beer bottle in a hole made by a 416 on a humongous wart hog. It was quite the site. BBQ was great also!

Precisely the reason that I bought my first 3/8 bore in 1982, and later, in 1989/90 upgraded to a 3/8 AI. I had visions of hunting Africa, where the 3/8 (.375 ) was the minimum for some game and also to hunt Alaska. To date, the .375 AI is my only "hunting" rifle. I want my hunting rifle to be an extension of my arm, like putting on a pair of well broken-in gloves….. I want absolute comfort and "be as one" with my rifle! memtb

 

[jessej]

I know you intend on elk size. But...There's a reason a 375HH is the smallest caliber allowed hunting in Africa in most areas. It's about the size of the bullet. These large calibers just cause one huge hole with lots of tissue damage. When I was about 10, I saw my best friends dad put an entire beer bottle in a hole made by a 416 Rigby at 100 yards on a humongous wart hog. It was quite the site. BBQ was great also!

I've heard of the drunk chicken recipe….
But never the drunk wart hog……

 

[Petey308]

This was good Aaron welcome back
Then I read this below as a contradiction of the above from my reading/ interpretation & take that as 2 steps backwards

I do agree with parts if you broadly want to talk but I actually thought hmm maybe we can get into the depths a little more this is with the utmost respect on the following
You still have a bit to clear your head before that can start & please everyone I've only just got Steve over the line on a few things that I've known for a longtime but he's showed me others I knew nothing about yes chewing the fat in a way that we can both be frank to ea other yet take no offence is hard but I'm sure we are @ a space now we both can see it's big picture ( & this is not just me he has others & im nothing special just vocal who pesters him flat out with result after result like now you see it & this is why yep critter after critter I'll take till I get my point across ) & why it's in private & not on here or other places ( I learnt from doing it in public with hammers & apex it's met with hostility as the white noise is frustrating to actually move forward & & this is not just promoting hammers I do that with everyone & OEP in Aussie to mark @ apex have taken on board what factual information i produce/provide , the thing I do is call a spade a spade
Please no offence intended

The last paragraph is correct but before we do we have to understand the basics & here's the next stage you might study up on & that's the planes & slip with different alloys then once we get past that we will move onto the bubbles then we can enter shape charges but ultimately it's the triangle that needs supporting yep we've done a bit of work that is no doubt in our words from bubble onwards but please study planes & slip they are not words used by many companies or bullet gurus ( if @ all ) but it's a good step forward to how we can look @ things ( clearing one's mind )
Yes I'm not shut off to you or anyone but I can't do that stickman thing Feenix put up as I've got serious time issues with a couple businesses to run & bullet testing to do let alone getting a bit of family/friends time that I value the most

Hello Brett,

Yes, it's been a while since I've interacted here. Life gets busy at times, which I know you can relate to.

I guess first off, I'm a little confused by how you seem to say certain things I've said are good, and you agree, but also things are contradictory, and you gave no real explanation as to how or why. At least nothing real specific was given that I read. I'm sorry if it's just that you took offense to what I said. I was not at all trying to be offensive to anyone.

I don't want to get into any argument or heated debate. I'm not coming back at you or anything, as I don't think you were coming at me. I'm only responding in an effort to give clarity to what I said and what you said in response. In post #202 in this thread, when I quoted and broke down the other response, I was deliberate in trying to respond only to what was said, and not who said it.

I've taken my time now before writing this response because I don't want it to just be some irrational and emotionally driven response. There's no negativity behind this.

So with all that said, I'm not entirely sure where to start off here, so I'll just start with the two areas/terms you brought up for me to look into.

In regards to "planes and slip", I can only assume you're talking material science here and mostly trying to get at how slip planes relate to plasticity, or more specifically plastic deformation and how the copper reacts, deforms, and breaks away after impacting an animal (If I'm wrong, please correct me and explain how I'm wrong. There's no need to beat around the bush).

I do understand that concept and how it applies. It has a lot to do with how and why the nose/ogive of monos like Hammer, Apex, Cutting Edge, LeHigh Defense, etc come apart and break away from the shank. Differences in alloys affect this as well, like if the petals fracture into many pieces, a few large pieces, if the shank looks as though the petals chipped off, or if it's more of a clean break, etc.

The nose coming apart and petals separating occurs rapidly, and I can see where you're trying to compare it to a "shaped charge", as you mentioned. As in, the nose essentially explodes and you see it as similar to an HEI round.

Since there's no actual explosive in the nose of these bullets, it's not the same and the force created as the petals expand, peel back, and separate is still only just instant massive hydraulic force, which pushes the fluid and tissues outward (both forwards and perpendicular), producing a ton of outward force and pressure in the process. This would cause the ribcage to expand, and would produce what looks like a "bubble" formed in the chest cavity. I'm not trying to pick on your terminology. Use what terms you like. Heck, I might still be wrong in my interpretation of what you're using it to refer to.

So with that said, I also understand the flat surface area created and left behind on the shank of such a bullet produces far more outwards (perpendicular) force than a pointed or completely rounded shape. And less contact surface means less overall opposing force to decrease the forward momentum and it also decreases drag.

That said, a lead core bullet that sheds weight can produce a similar transfer/conversion of energy into a rapid pressure increase and hydraulic force, and the mushrooming and wider contact surface , even if more rounded, produces a lot of perpendicular force as well. It just tends to produce more opposing force and drag and loses momentum at a higher rate, and its penetration potential CAN be less. As stated in my previous posts, a higher rate of momentum loss means more energy is transferred/converted to force (hydraulic force in this circumstance). So due to the potential high rate of momentum loss, there needs to be sufficient starting mass and retained mass to ensure said bullet penetrates adequately.

So, by ensuring said lead core bullet has enough mass at the start, and retains enough mass, and also retains enough velocity after the initial impact and shedding of weight, it can and will still penetrate deeply and this is when we see exits. Having a rounded front/edges also has the effect of reducing some drag and lowering some of the opposing forces. The amount of wounding produced is still massive as well.

We see similar internal damage with both types of bullets too, in the form of puréed organs, from the hydraulic force blowing them apart, and overall wide wounding. This still is dependent on other things though. It's not always guaranteed with either type of bullet.

Mass tends to be a bigger factor with soft constructed lead core bullets, and more specifically: retained momentum. Getting the right amount and balance is definitely achievable though and putting it all together produces excellent results that have been well documented.

The post below was my attempt at discussing the differences in momentum and how with plenty of starting mass, plenty of retained mass with certain lead core bullets still occurs.

This is going to be partly in response to this given scenario I'm replying to, and partly in response to the original post itself. So it's not a response aimed at anyone in particular.

So comparing the 124gr Hammer to the 215gr Berger, mass-wise, we're talking a difference of .187 vs .324, in the form of sectional density. This helps us compare their mass more proportionally. We're also talking about a huge difference in construction and mechanics of how they work.

From what I've seen and experienced so far, bullets like Hammer varieties, Apex Outdoors Afterburners, LeHigh Defense Controlled Chaos, Cutting Edge varieties, etc are all frangible in design, due to the fact they are purposely designed to shed weight and have the entire ogive section come apart after impact and shed away from the rest of the projectile.

So with that said, they still should have a decent amount of starting mass since they're designed to shed a lot of weight, just like a soft/frangible lead core bullet. They need the retained mass in order to retain momentum. That will ensure they still produce adequate hydraulic force as they continue penetrating. If they lose too much momentum, and/or not a wide enough surface area, penciling will still occur because the amount of hydraulic force produced will greatly reduce. The lower amount of surface area though tends to allow them to not completely stop forward momentum, compared to a mushroomed lead core with a wider surface area.

A soft/frangible lead core bullet, such as a Berger, with plenty of mass will still shed a lot of weight, but it'll also still end up more mushroomed than those listed monos. So that helps still produce wide wounding from hydraulic force even if they lose a lot of momentum as a result.

The following pictures give a basic look at some numbers regarding momentum and using the scenario already given with the 124gr Hammer at a MV of 4200fps and the 215gr Berger at a MV of 3200fps. The figures on amount of mass lost and amount of velocity lost is an estimation based on typical or advertised results, but obviously isn't a guarantee since getting those actual numbers will be pretty impossible to obtain. So take this for whatever it may be worth. Maybe it's worth nothing to you, and I'm fine with that. I feel it's pretty representative though to the real world. Also, the percentage of mass lost and velocity lost is in reference to after impact and after the main shedding of weight has occurred. The mass lost is the same for the Hammer at close and longer range because it seems that amount stays pretty consistent as long as the petals all completely separate. The Berger will vary based on impact velocity and impact resistance and that's why it's different. It'll obviously lose more mass with higher impact velocities and more resistance, hence why the numbers are what they are.

View attachment 442092


View attachment 442093


View attachment 442094


So if you look at simple cause and effect, and action/reaction, certain selling points with certain petal-shedding monos can be contradictory.

How can a bullet with less momentum and less mass penetrate completely, yet also produce the same or more hydraulic force (amount of wounding)? A huge amount of hydraulic force will create an opposing force to forward momentum. This is why even with more momentum a bullet like a Berger often doesn't exit. It sheds weight, but also still continues to mushroom. The fact that it still has more momentum but doesn't exit, yet retains a lot of mass, shows us it produced a ton of hydraulic force and that arrested the forward momentum rapidly.

***Also, in regards to the subject of energy specifically, the whole "bubble" terminology seems to be misunderstood. From my summation, it's a made up term for what the bullet does as it enters and then travels through an animal. The same people that say energy dump and energy transfer isn't real use this term, so I've seen.

In reality, it is indeed energy transfer and hydraulic force and hydrostatic shock. The confusion of these terms seems to also come in part by things like that "Shooting Holes in Wounding Theories" paper, which there's already been a discussion on about its legitimacy and the background of the writer and no one seems to really know who this person really is and their actual experience, nor have I seen anyone figure out how to contact this person. So a separate reality and terminology has been created and in my opinion, it doesn't lineup with actual reality and actual science, at least not completely and as stated.

The term "bubble" has been used to ultimately refer to the huge rise in pressure inside the chest cavity from the bullet expanding, then coming apart, and the extreme velocity itself.

What that actually is though is energy transfer and hydraulic force being produced as a result. Hydraulic force will literally apply pressure against what it is being exerted upon, therefore the outward pressure within the chest cavity will increase and cause the whole ribcage to expand. We see the same sort of thing with gel, as the whole block expands and shape-shifts upon impact. High speed camera footage shows us the hydraulic force and energy transfer much clearer. This is shown well in post #107. This effect, specifically the amount of energy transferred and hydraulic force produced, is highly dependent upon bullet construction and how the bullet behaves upon impact. Not all perform the same and produce the same results.

Onto another point: using large magnum cartridges and/or large calibers vs short action cartridges and/or smaller calibers. First off, I do use large magnums and will continue to do so because there are practical reasons to do so. I'm not too naive though to think you have to use a magnum, 30cal minimum, and like a 200gr or heavier bullet with around 1500 or so foot pounds of energy, minimum, in order to be most successful. I use a lot of smaller cartridges and smaller calibers too, with the same success rate. Ultimately, the bullet is the hero, not the cartridge or even caliber size.

What cartridge is needed really depends. With certain bullets, certain distances needed, and certain game, sure a big magnum or large caliber might be what you want. But when you start tweaking things like exactly what bullet you're using (and in the right direction), you can still achieve desired results with much smaller cartridges, less powder, lighter bullets, lower recoil, etc. That's because you can create proper wounding and trauma still by using the right bullet. You can still do what is needed with less kinetic energy in the bullet because you're still untimely getting the actual amount of needed energy from the bullet and transferred directly into the wounding. That's what it's all about.

That's why shedding weight with bullets after impact works so well. There just needs to be enough starting mass so that there's also enough retained mass to keep the wounding going all the way through the vitals.

And thanks to the huge demand for high BC bullets nowadays, we have smaller caliber bullets, constructed with thin jackets and no bonding, that have plenty of mass (to get the increase in BC), plus cartridges coming out to get the most out of them with great efficiency.

The only people still having issues are those that do not understand bullet construction and terminal ballistics and are still picking the wrong bullet for the job or wrong combination with a particular cartridge and then placing it in a poor location for the particular scenario presented.

And while I'm talking about it, I've known since LeHigh Defense introduced their copper bullets that shed weight (petals), that that's the way to go with monos in order to truly get the best results in the form of productive energy transfer and hydraulic shock production. They still weren't perfect though and still had other hurdles to get over in order to really get the most from them.

That basic principle design is actually good. The design to shed weight and still have a surface that produces hydraulic force is crucial for best results. It allows for a rapid transfer of energy without losing too much momentum as it still produces hydraulic forces and wide wounding.

What hurdles still remain though are staying competitive with long range capability (low impact velocity performance and ability to retain as much velocity as possible), reliable and consistent expansion and full shedding of the petals without issues caused by necking over, tumbling, or not expanding at all, and cost.

We've seen certain companies do well, and others not so much.

This all may sound confusing and hard to do, but it's not. Hundreds and even thousands of hunters are successful with this all over the world. That's why there are countless success stories with soft constructed lead core bullets. It's still easy to screw up too, and is why we also have seen or heard about lots of horror stories, but every bullet has its share of horror stories. There are lots of threads in this forum proving that lol.

And to be clear, I am not at all trying to debate which bullet is better here. I'm discussing both basic types that were recently brought to attention in an example, and how each type puts energy to work. That's the whole point of this thread. It's not at all about saying a lead core is better, or a mono is better, or a specific type of either is better. It's about how any and all put energy to work and what is most important when selecting a bullet for your particular needs.

Hopefully this helps clear things up on my end. If you have more to discuss, I'm all ears.

Aaron.

 

[FEENIX]

Hello Brett,

Yes, it's been a while since I've interacted here. Life gets busy at times, which I know you can relate to.

I guess first off, I'm a little confused by how you seem to say certain things I've said are good, and you agree, but also things are contradictory, and you gave no real explanation as to how or why. At least nothing real specific was given that I read. I'm sorry if it's just that you took offense to what I said. I was not at all trying to be offensive to anyone.

I don't want to get into any argument or heated debate. I'm not coming back at you or anything, as I don't think you were coming at me. I'm only responding in an effort to give clarity to what I said and what you said in response. In post #202 in this thread, when I quoted and broke down the other response, I was deliberate in trying to respond only to what was said, and not who said it.

I've taken my time now before writing this response because I don't want it to just be some irrational and emotionally driven response. There's no negativity behind this.

So with all that said, I'm not entirely sure where to start off here, so I'll just start with the two areas/terms you brought up for me to look into.

In regards to "planes and slip", I can only assume you're talking material science here and mostly trying to get at how slip planes relate to plasticity, or more specifically plastic deformation and how the copper reacts, deforms, and breaks away after impacting an animal (If I'm wrong, please correct me and explain how I'm wrong. There's no need to beat around the bush).

I do understand that concept and how it applies. It has a lot to do with how and why the nose/ogive of monos like Hammer, Apex, Cutting Edge, LeHigh Defense, etc come apart and break away from the shank. Differences in alloys affect this as well, like if the petals fracture into many pieces, a few large pieces, if the shank looks as though the petals chipped off, or if it's more of a clean break, etc.

The nose coming apart and petals separating occurs rapidly, and I can see where you're trying to compare it to a "shaped charge", as you mentioned. As in, the nose essentially explodes and you see it as similar to an HEI round.

Since there's no actual explosive in the nose of these bullets, it's not the same and the force created as the petals expand, peel back, and separate is still only just instant massive hydraulic force, which pushes the fluid and tissues outward (both forwards and perpendicular), producing a ton of outward force and pressure in the process. This would cause the ribcage to expand, and would produce what looks like a "bubble" formed in the chest cavity. I'm not trying to pick on your terminology. Use what terms you like. Heck, I might still be wrong in my interpretation of what you're using it to refer to.

So with that said, I also understand the flat surface area created and left behind on the shank of such a bullet produces far more outwards (perpendicular) force than a pointed or completely rounded shape. And less contact surface means less overall opposing force to decrease the forward momentum and it also decreases drag.

That said, a lead core bullet that sheds weight can produce a similar transfer/conversion of energy into a rapid pressure increase and hydraulic force, and the mushrooming and wider contact surface , even if more rounded, produces a lot of perpendicular force as well. It just tends to produce more opposing force and drag and loses momentum at a higher rate, and its penetration potential CAN be less. As stated in my previous posts, a higher rate of momentum loss means more energy is transferred/converted to force (hydraulic force in this circumstance). So due to the potential high rate of momentum loss, there needs to be sufficient starting mass and retained mass to ensure said bullet penetrates adequately.

So, by ensuring said lead core bullet has enough mass at the start, and retains enough mass, and also retains enough velocity after the initial impact and shedding of weight, it can and will still penetrate deeply and this is when we see exits. Having a rounded front/edges also has the effect of reducing some drag and lowering some of the opposing forces. The amount of wounding produced is still massive as well.

We see similar internal damage with both types of bullets too, in the form of puréed organs, from the hydraulic force blowing them apart, and overall wide wounding. This still is dependent on other things though. It's not always guaranteed with either type of bullet.

Mass tends to be a bigger factor with soft constructed lead core bullets, and more specifically: retained momentum. Getting the right amount and balance is definitely achievable though and putting it all together produces excellent results that have been well documented.

The post below was my attempt at discussing the differences in momentum and how with plenty of starting mass, plenty of retained mass with certain lead core bullets still occurs.




This all may sound confusing and hard to do, but it's not. Hundreds and even thousands of hunters are successful with this all over the world. That's why there are countless success stories with soft constructed lead core bullets. It's still easy to screw up too, and is why we also have seen or heard about lots of horror stories, but every bullet has its share of horror stories. There are lots of threads in this forum proving that lol.

And to be clear, I am not at all trying to debate which bullet is better here. I'm discussing both basic types that were recently brought to attention in an example, and how each type puts energy to work. That's the whole point of this thread. It's not at all about saying a lead core is better, or a mono is better, or a specific type of either is better. It's about how any and all put energy to work and what is most important when selecting a bullet for your particular needs.

Hopefully this helps clear things up on my end. If you have more to discuss, I'm all ears.

Aaron.

As always, well done!

 

[bultinkle]

I know you intend on elk size. But...There's a reason a 375HH is the smallest caliber allowed hunting in Africa in most areas. It's about the size of the bullet. These large calibers just cause one huge hole with lots of tissue damage. When I was about 10, I saw my best friends dad put an entire beer bottle in a hole made by a 416 Rigby at 100 yards on a humongous wart hog. It was quite the site. BBQ was great also!

But this is only for the dangerous game yes? Where large solids are needed for guaranteed penetration of heavy bone

People post on here all the time about taking plains game with normal cartridges

 

[fordy]

Gday Aaron thanks for the reply & your time I will get a reply back asap
Cheers

 

[memtb]

But this is only for the dangerous game yes? Where large solids are needed for guaranteed penetration of heavy bone

People post on here all the time about taking plains game with normal cartridges

For some, a .375 or one of it's brethren, is normal. The .375 is superb on plains game, when kept within it's range limitations. They also work quite well on all NA game as well…..I've been told! memtb

 

[C-130 Dude]

But this is only for the dangerous game yes? Where large solids are needed for guaranteed penetration of heavy bone

People post on here all the time about taking plains game with normal cartridges

Whats a "normal cartridge"? IMHO, I have found that as range and game size increases it helps to run a larger caliber. Insurance for drt. Inside of 400 yds, a 6.5 or 30 cal works fine for most deer sized. As game size increases from deer size, and range increases, up the caliber to a 300 WM and similar. You can go up from there as needed. Just my "planning method".

 

[bultinkle]

Whats a "normal cartridge"? IMHO, I have found that as range and game size increases it helps to run a larger caliber. Insurance for drt. Inside of 400 yds, a 6.5 or 30 cal works fine for most deer sized. As game size increases from deer size, and range increases, up the caliber to a 300 WM and similar. You can go up from there as needed. Just my "planning method".

Less than 375 I guess?

I just don't think the requirement for a charging Cape buffalo has much to do with an elk. Elk seem to get killed pretty darn well with a 215.

 

[bultinkle]

For some, a .375 or one of it's brethren, is normal. The .375 is superb on plains game, when kept within it's range limitations. They also work quite well on all NA game as well…..I've been told! memtb

Yeah my wording is off and I didn't mean to imply a 375 wouldn't work well for deer/elk/plains game. I know it's used often. Just that it isn't required for the game that is analogous to US ungulates.

You seem to do very well with the cartridge and I often admire that you've got your situation so figured out. However I would wager a 375 isn't the normal elk cartridge for the average hunter or long range hunter of the species. Though I could be totally wrong on that front!

 

[C-130 Dude]

Less than 375 I guess?

I just don't think the requirement for a charging Cape buffalo has much to do with an elk. Elk seem to get killed pretty darn well with a 215.

Absolutely! I was speaking to the bullet size and distance decision. Specifically for elk at 500 yds+ distance, I'd opt for a 300WM or up to ensure an ethical drt shot. And a little range time to dial it all in prior. But that's just me. It's all good